W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css3-syntax] legal implementability

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:57:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDuUJTkkB3qnabJefktA9K=qPjPji_YborqkhHe9+FiAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote:
> css3-syntax currently has:
>
>   Copyright © 2013 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved.
>   W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
>
> where "document use" is a link to
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents,
> which in turn says:
>
>   No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is granted
>   pursuant to this license.  However, if additional requirements (documented in
>   the Copyright FAQ) are satisfied, the right to create modifications or
>   derivatives is sometimes granted by the W3C to individuals complying with
>   those requirements.
>
> Thus, it would seem that it's a copyright violation to implement css3-syntax as
> a straightforward transcription to a programing language, just as translating a
> literary work from English to Greek is covered by copyright.

This reading implies that specs *in general* can't be
straightforwardly translated into code, correct?  It's not an issue
with Syntax specifically, except that perhaps it is somewhat more
explicit (and thus, code can be somewhat closer to the spec text) than
most specs are.

I recommend taking this up with W3C's legal staff if you think there
really is a problem, as the members of this group cannot realistically
answer any legal questions about W3C's copyright.  I'm not sure what
their email is, but perhaps someone on this list has it on hand;
otherwise, I'll look it up today and reply.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 16:58:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:05 GMT